It happened before the attack

Call it hypocrisy or not, it would help the people in China. And now, a Chinese organization is calling for action. Ignoring an opportunity to do the right thing won’t make you look less hypocritical, but more.

The two-China issue has been out of sight. It has been replaced by One Country on Each Side or independence. In other words, Taiwan is not claiming to be China in place of the People’s Republic of China. Given the absence of that issue which could be politically rather than militarily resolved anyway, the reason for China can only be occupation or colonization, as seen in Hong Kong.

Because treaty rights are parallel to human rights

Critics have also warned that the government could issue directives compelling companies to weaken or bypass encryption tools. The CCSPA does not prohibit such orders (McMillan, at para 3).

Unlike NIS2, which places significant emphasis on transparency, institutional accountability, and harmonized enforcement through national authorities, Bill C-8 consolidates authority within the federal Cabinet and delegates sweeping powers to the Minister without creating any independent regulatory body.

The literal meaning of the law disclosed by the coverage only emphasizes the prohibition of blocking the access to a religious or community center. That’s what’s added. If they are still using the word “hatred”, it won’t include more groups unless they have this overt action.

Conversely, I concur that the police’s response to hate crimes has been severely inadequate.

Moreover, while the lawfulness of a protest will not be changed by the law if the protesters don’t block the access, the right to protest is disproportionally restricted by the existing legal system.

Although the exact wording hasn’t been released, the news coverage says

To avoid infringing Charter rights, the source said, there would be an exemption so people can advocate and protest as long as it’s lawful.

So unlike the Ontario one, it seems that protests are not prohibited?